754 So. 2d 54 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
May 2009
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Michigan v. Mosley · 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · 705 So. 2d 1337 - San Martin v. State · 589 So. 2d 373 - Dempsey v. Shell Oil Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“asked him whether he had been involved in the robbery, and Smith replied by asking [the detective] whether "anybody had seen a car leave." Detective . . . responded that somebody had and Smith then stated "well, you got me on that." During the trial, the prosecution, twice on direct and once on rebuttal, asked [the detective] whether Smith had given a stenographically recorded statement. Detective . . . testified that he requested such a statement but Smith had refused.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"[t]he accuracy and integrity of oral incriminating statements are frequent targets of defense counsel who often suggest an unfairness of the use of oral statements of an accused who has not been afforded the opportunity to put his statement in writing. It is only reasonable that the state be permitted to elicit the fact that the accused was given the opportunity and declined."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“emphasiz[ing] Smith's refusal to give such a statement by making repeated references to the refusal . . . and then arguing in closing that `[w]e know that the defendant did not want to give a [stenographic] statement and the reason should be rather obvious to you.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.